Was There Media Sleight of Hand in the Hillary Clinton Email Fiasco?

During the last U.S. presidential campaign period we saw how an attribute usually valued in a candidate was turned into a weakness.  That characteristic was experience.  Hillary Clinton had the experience, Barack Obama offered hope and change.  Experience lost.  In fact, experience became associated with other negative attributes, such as old and intractable.  It wasn’t the only reason why Barack Obama won, but it contributed.

Association can be a subtle form of influence.  A word with positive connotations is linked to more negative ones.  Unless we’re aware of the slight of hand involved here, we can be duped into believing what may be completely erroneous.  We saw this week how attacks on Hillary Clinton  are getting into full swing again.  According to Media Matters, the New York Times article accusing her of illegally using personal email while Secretary of State was “deceptive”.

The New York Times reported, “Under federal law, however, letters and emails written and received by federal officials, such as the secretary of state, are considered government records and are supposed to be retained so that congressional committees, historians and members of the news media can find them. There are exceptions to the law for certain classified and sensitive materials.”

The only problem, the law to which The New York Times article referred was not passed until two years after Clinton had ceased being secretary of state.

Bob Cesca at Daily Banter pointed out: “The article doesn’t say which federal regulation, though. Why? Perhaps because the federal regulations went into effect in late November, 2014 when President Obama signed H.R. 1233, modernizing the Federal Records Act of 1950 to include electronic communications. It was signed two years after Clinton stepped down.”

Of course, the damage had been done.

At Big Think today, I posted a blog about another way that we’re misinformed by the media — some-people-say journalism.  Here reliance is placed on what the reporter or anchor tells us unknown people are supposedly thinking.   As we move closer to the 2016 election, we should be expecting better from the media.  If they can’t provide it, we should be expecting better of ourselves.  When you hear “some people say,” “some people think” and phrases of that ilk, consider changing the channel because you’re not listening to responsible news.  It’s extremely important to be wary of our sources if we are to avoid being duped over and over.

Whatever the actual truth about Hillary Clinton’s email practices as secretary of state, we should be skeptical of the purpose of the fiasco elicited by the NYT article.  Is it possible that I’m concerned because she is a woman and the U.S. has never had a female president?  Is it also possible that I’m particularly concerned because having studied gender differences, I’m aware of how disparaging labels and associations hurt women’s progression in work and government?  Yes to both.  But, perhaps like you, I don’t want any potential political candidate to become a target of undeserved criticism — especially gratuitous lies.  And I certainly don’t want to help media outlets not doing their homework or carrying a grudge to influence my views and my votes.